Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

4 PUBLIC OVERSIGHT OF ECOLOGICALLY BASED PEST MANAGEMENT
Pages 96-116

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 96...
... Any EBPM approach may entail risk to human health or to the environment. Appropriate oversight, therefore, is required to ensure that potential risks are properly assessed and managed, thereby promoting public acceptance of the use of biological-control organisms, biological-control products, or resistant plants.
From page 97...
... The specificity of the mode of action of the biological organism, or resistant plant with respect to target pest, the likely constrained geographic area of biologically based control measures, and the method of deployment all contribute to the likelihood of safety. Human and environmental health risks of biological controls are not only different in kind from those of most conventional chemicals but also lower in the degree of hazard potentially posed.
From page 98...
... There is a need for a mechanism such as the IR-4 Program to encourage public support for development of biological-control organisms and products. HUMAN HEALTH RISKS Humans will come into contact with biological-control organisms, biological-control products, and resistant plants during their production and application and through exposure to organisms or residues that persist on crops and in the environment.
From page 99...
... Alternatively, resistant plant cultivars may pose risks to consumers if the edible portion of the crop is altered in harmful ways. The acute and chronic toxicities associated with broadspectrum conventional pesticides may be less likely with biological-control organisms and products and resistant plants.
From page 100...
... Use of biological-control organisms and products as well as of resistant plants potentially can harm nontarget organism populations directly or indirectly though altered interactions within the pest complex. Use of control organisms and resistant plants can result in a new pathogen or weed through genetic exchange with other microbes and plants (Betz et al., 1987; Higley and Wintersteen, 1992; Hollander, 1991; Howarth, 1983, 1991; Hoy, 1992; Hoy et al., 1991; Lockwood, 1993; Nafus, 1993; National Audubon Society, 1994; Pimentel et al., 1992; Tiedje et al., 1989; U.S.
From page 101...
... . Even after thorough investigation of the physiological host range of a new biological-control organism, and with data on ecological host ranges of closely related organisms, additional assessments of affected hosts must be made after the organism is introduced into the field.
From page 102...
... is in place, particularly if closely related biological-control organisms have previously been monitored there after release (National Audubon Society, 1994)
From page 103...
... Plant resistance factors range from chemical to physical and can be specific to a single pest species or have broad effects on an array of organisms as different as arthropods and pathogens. The potential risks to nontarget organisms resulting from new or elevated levels of toxins in resistant plant cultivars are not well known.
From page 104...
... The range of species affected by a plant resistance factor is an indicator of potential effects on nontarget organisms.
From page 105...
... Exacerbation of Plant Pests Assessment of the safety of a biological-control organism introduced into the environment involves several factors, including familiarity with the organism and its function, prior history of use, and characteristics of the target environment. Much has been learned from prior releases of biological-control organisms that can provide a basis for assessment.
From page 106...
... in the United States. When these johnsongrass populations extend their already major ecological role outside agricultural fields, they represent the most extreme category of known risk associated with gene flow from a crop to a weedy relative.
From page 107...
... Crop losses caused by crown gall occur worldwide and can be extensive, particularly in nurseries growing rosaceous plants, grapevines, and stone fruit trees.
From page 108...
... There are innumerable combinations of controls (organisms, products, resistant plants) , pests (pathogens, weeds, arthropods)
From page 109...
... Although public officials remain the ultimate arbiters of the acceptability of any risks posed by a new pest control, the diverse nature of biological-controls dictates involvement of scientists with relevant experience or expertise simply on the grounds of efficiency, avoiding imposition of unnecessary or duplicate information requirements. Setting Priorities Experience, experimentation, and expert opinion should direct oversight attention to broad-spectrum organisms and products or resistant plants and their use on major acreage crops where risk factors are greatest or most difficult to assess.
From page 110...
... . Many biological-control organisms, even if fully commercialized would be limited to relatively small geographical areas because of their environmental or host specificity.
From page 111...
... When empirical evidence indicates a restricted host specificity, then risk from introduction of an organism from that group can be estimated (National Audubon Society, 1994)
From page 112...
... . Gaps and Inconsistencies in Current Oversight The current oversight responsibility for biological-control organisms, products and resistant plants is shared primarily between EPA and USDA/APHIS and is characterized by application of different oversight requirements for microorganisms versus macroorganisms, for exotic versus indigenous organisms, and for organisms considered to be plant pests and those not considered plant pests.
From page 113...
... FIFRA was intended for regulation of chemical pesticides and poses severe constraints to the efficient testing of microbial biological-control organisms. Once separated from exotic or endemic plant pests under quarantine or similar containment conditions, biological-control organisms should be subject to risk assessment protocols commensurate with their biological and ecological attributes.
From page 114...
... Such a distinction imbedded in regulatory practice would not necessarily reflect differences between actual human or environmental health risks posed by the two technologies. Options for Improvement The barriers to effective, efficient oversight for biological-control organisms and products and resistant plants are inconsistencies in the existing framework of laws and regulations and the resultant overlap or lack of coordination among agencies with jurisdiction.
From page 115...
... Streamlining the oversight process would enable those involved in research, development, and use of biological-control organisms and products to anticipate the requirements of public evaluation of product efficacy and human and environmental health risks. Those involved should be able to identify, through an integrated road map or similar mechanism, the agencies with authority for the specific organism or product to be evaluated.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.